OK, maybe I’m missing out on some central facts here, but can somebody explain to me why the Japanese sided with Hitler in WWII? After all, wasn’t Hitler’s whole philosophy centered around the supremacy of the white race? Were the Japanese unfamiliar with his views (this seems highly unlikely)? Conversely, if Hitler was so vehemently pro-Aryan, why did he take sides with what he considered to be an “inferior race”? Didn’t this seem like hypocrisy to the Nazis following him? And while we’re on the topic, why all the persecution of the Jewish people through the ages? What exactly was their sin supposed to be, aside from not being in the religious majority? And weren’t they also (mostly) white? I mean, I know they are considered a “people”, but why? I thought it was just a religion, and if so, how did the whole racial aspect come into it (in Hitler’s mind?) I hope these questions aren’t offensive, but I’m honestly curious about this. And sorry this is so long.
Wood, I’m sure some historical types here will tell you hows and whys about the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis. I think that ideology was not the main issue here, including “the Jewish question”: Mussolini was not antisemitic at all, but Germany’s loyal ally.
I think that the desire to dominate, to conquere was the unifying force. Italy was weak to do much in Europe, she moved to Ethiopia. Japan and Germany did all they could in their spheres. Japan did not have Jews, they “played out” on Asian people. The Slavs were “lowly” people to Hitler, the Koreans - to Japan. Evil does not need to go far to find an object. I think, Japan and Germany had actually little in common aside from common enemies. They drove them together more than mutual love (Mongoloids are "inferior race for “Arians”, but so the “Whites” were to Japan).
The prosecution of Jews, in all countries, by all peoples is unique in human (European) history. It’s a biiiig topic. I wonder what other SDoppers think. It started on religios grounds, but then people who even do not believe in Jesus Christ, or any God, hate Jews.
The Nazis and the military leaders of Japan operated on the basis of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Both were aligned against the U.K. and its Commonwealth, France, the Netherlands, the U.S., and, most significantly, the U.S.S.R. Each sought support from the other, often in direct contradiction of their own stated beliefs and culture, simply because it made more political sense to become allies than to become foes. They were far enough apart that each could have won (their initial) battles and they would have never come in contact with each other, so each could ignore that they were dealing with and “inferior” race, because neither would have to put large numbers of troops in close proximity to the other’s troops.
As to the originas on anti-Jewish feeling, that subject has been addressed on numerous occasions, most famously here:
Why are Jews persecuted?
What’s the origin of anti-Semitism?
Why is anti-Semitism so popular?
My take on most anti-semitism is that it generally arises because the Jews value their faith enough to resist assimilation with other cultures. They will not accept “other gods” and they will not give up their religious practices just to “fit in.” This means that they are always somewhat distinct in any society and, therefore, they make easy targets as scapegoats or just xenophobia.
(The Japanese/Nazi connection has also been explored on this board, but searching for that earlier discussion is a bit more difficult.)
The basis of the German-Japanese alliance in World War II was the Anti-Comintern Pact, in which the two nations proclaimed a shared opposition to the Communists. This was also the basis of the later tripartite agreement between Germany, Japan, and Italy. The Three-Power Pact of 1940 seems less concerned with launching a crusade against world Communism, and more with carving up the world into imperial spheres of interest:
Bear in mind that Hitler was quite opportunistic in his foreign policy; after having risen to power (and forged international alliances with Italy and Japan) as a crusader against Communism, he then turned around and signed a Nonaggression Treaty with the Soviet Union, and a Secret Protocol dividing Central Europe between Hitler and Stalin. Hitler of course later violated these agreements and invaded the Soviet Union.
Basically, Germany and Japan were far enough apart that they had no immediate conflicts of interest; they were interested in conquering different parts of the world. I believe Hitler actually referred to the Japanese as “yellow Aryans”. No doubt if their empires had ever come into contact, all that would have changed rather quickly.
Actually, the Japanese Empire was on the oposite side of Hitler’s anti-semitism. A half-century before the Nazis outdid them at it, the greatest persecutors of the Jews was Czarist Russia. Nicholas II religiously despised the Jews and gave tacit support to savage pogroms in hopes that they would vent the growing discontent in his empire. When Japan and Russia came to blows in 1905, The Jewish community, with its considerable international business connections, were supportive of the Japanese when most other Westerners remained aloof. The Japanese never forgot this, and when Jewish refugees began to arive in China in the 1930’s, they found themselves welcome in the Japaese-controlled areas, and later protected when Japan’s Axis partner demanded they be turned over.
I’m not sure where I heard this anymore, but I recall that the Nazis went to great lengths to “prove” the Japanese were descended from a lost tribe of Aryans, and were as racially “pure” as Hitler’s blond, blue-eyed nordics.
Go fig.
~~Baloo
I believe that Hitler’s thing was racial purity (which is, of course, a ridiculous and fictitious concept). He claimed that his problem with various (politically selected) races was that they were impure "mongrel’ races. This idea appealed to right-wing Japanese who liked to believe that they were all descended from the goddess Amaterasu. Likewise, the Germans were able to justify their alliance with the Japanese because they claimed the Japanese were racially pure. I’m sure that if it had been politically expedient, the Nazi’s could just as easily have claimed that the Jews were racially pure. I seem to recall a thread in the past few that that mentioned that Hitler had proclaimed the Cherokees a “pure race” with the hope that they would start a war against the U.S. I don’t have any specific references for any of this because I have never been able to stomach enough of this crap to read a whole book about it.
Q<<My take on most anti-semitism is that it generally arises because the Jews value their faith enough to resist assimilation with other cultures.>>
This statement, made by apparantly “educated” person, capabble of operating a PC, shows how deep misconceptions are rooted.
The Jews (in the religious meaning of this word) never compared their religion to any other (except paganism, but all other monotheistic religions do that feel “superior”). They “value their faith” not more than Irish Catholics “value” theirs. They never resisted asimilation and are glad to assimilate, given the opportunity. Instead of clinging to you antisemitic “takes”, look around you, Tom. In this country, no barriers exist for Jews, they marry outside their religion in greater numbers than inside. Nobody speaks Yiddish anymore. The Jews were historically forced into the corner. The interfaith marriages were forbidden, they couldn’t live or work among the Gentiles, or own land, or serve in the army. The antisemitic Gentiles, like you, resisted assimillation, not the Jews.
Your world is upside down, Tom.
Given freedom, the Jews assimilate faster than any othen people. I think, there will be no Jews in this country 1n 2200.
The assertion that Jews “resist assimilation” is not new. First, the Jews get completetly segregated from the Gentiles. Then they are accused of “resisting assimilation”. Who resist whom?
Under the Romans, (particularly Nero and Diocletian), and under the Zoroastrians, and under various Christian regimes, the political authorities demanded that the Jews give up their religious practices and assimilate with the rest of society in which religion was a lynchpin of society.
The two strongest sources for anti-Jewish sentiment in western Europe were Pope Paul IV who created the institution of the ghetto in 1555 (and who demanded that Jews give up most of the occupations that would allow them to live above the subsistence level), and Martin Luther who, when the Jews failed to rally to his “reform” of Christianity as he expected, declared that they should be exterminated.
Their most Catholic Majesties in Spain may have actually desired to escape the debt they had incurred to Jewish financiers to pay for their war with the Moors, but they framed their oppression in demands that the Jews abandon their religion or abandon Spain.
In those times and places (the early post-Roman Empire western Europe, the Netherlands, 19th century London, the late 20th Century U.S.) where there has not been a call to demand religious uniformity, Jews have been able to make lives for themselves without suffering persecution–yet have remained Jewish.
I did not make any case for “blaming the victim.” Jews have never “brought it on themselves” and I have never made any such suggestion. The reality, however, is that the Jews have historically held fast to their faith and have often paid for that by persecution. If they only held to their faith when they have been persecuted, you are going to have to explain several periods of history covering hundreds of years in several parts of the world where they were not actively persecuted and where they still maintained their faith.
peace before this gets shoved into GD could you please tone down your tone. I first met you a night or two ago, on the voting thread. You are certainly a rather intelligent fellow, although your shpilkes influences your posts a bit too much for GQ.
tom is also a rather intelligent fellow(and I am sure you have read his posts for a long time). He offers facts, and sometimes opinions, which are hard to refute. And I think you may have some right on your side this time, but you will notice that his reply was carefully disigned to keep this in GQ.
You certainly are right, peace, about the Jews in America being assimilated, if you define assimilated as marrying outside their faith BELIEF
And, as for no one speaking Yiddish anymore, Leo Rosten is my hero. And this from a former Southern Baptist. 
I’m not up to debating with either you or tom, but will look forward to reading your(plural) replies to each other.
TOM**: The reality, however, is that the Jews have historically held fast to their faith and have often paid for that by persecution.{/b]
This is absolutely true. And very different from your previous statement. Once again, I repeat what I said: whatever the reason (if there must be a reason), Jews are very easy get assimilated. Literally, in front of our eyes, in this country. The European Jewery is not far behind. Even in the past, under more or less strict segregation laws, Polish Jews looked differennt from Romanian Jews. Both are supposedly came from the same stock of recent “Spanish” Jews. American Jews look so much “American”, that it was noticed in a recent thread hear (“Oh, you don’t look Jewish”) I do not know why modern Ephiopian Jews and Middle Eastern Jews look practically indistinguishable from local populations. Unless we conclude that they are not the actual descendants af Abraham, as they claim, but are local population converted to Judaism. Given traditional Middle Eastern fanatism, hard to believe. Extra marital sex? In Middle Ades? In Middle East? Recent studies seem to confirm that DNA patterns of some East African tribes practicing sort of Judaism is closer to Israeli Cohenim
than to surrounding African Gentile tribes. All this is very fascinating, but I’ll return to the beginning: antisemitism and assimation (or non-assimilation) of the Jews.
It’s true, that the Jews resisted forced Baptismization and, even if forced under “the gun”, secretly continued to practice Judaism. The explanation is easy: any religious person can willingly convert or abandon the religion altogether but will fiercly resist forced conversion (the same is true for non-religious believes, we cling to our belives.) Reason number two: often this religious conversion was not accompanied by cultural and ethnical emancipation. Not very long ago, under both communists and nazis “religious conversion or relinquishing” did not mean the end of persecution: atheist Jews died in in nazi camps and were not allowed full civil rights in the Soviet Socialist camp.
Accusing Jews in resisting assimilation is like accusing Black Americans in resisting education after it was practically impossible for them to get near college.
In fact (my opinion) it looks that when Jews are “cornered”, they tend to stick together, to keep and to resurrect ancient rituals, to speak their own language, etc. When they are completely emancipated, they assimilate fantastically fast, forget their language and religion, quarrel among themselves more than they do with the Gentiles, etc.
As to the main reason for the antisemitism, I tend to agree with those who said it was mainly the envy. And the elimination of the competition. But this was covered sufficiently in Tom’s references above.
Damn! I hate it when my links go awry. The one in question documented a study in modern US, polling rabbis, and said that, currently, over half of all Jewish marriages in the US are to members of faiths other than Jewish.
Sorry Sam, I overlooked you post (the timestamps were close) and I apologize for the harshness and for getting too emotional. I know Tom and I was surprised to hear it from him. Usually, I don’t even bother to reply to posts, written by obviously stupid people, but when centuries-old accusations are repeated by an intelligent person, it hurts. Sorry Tom, I sincerely hope that it was a misunderstanding. I promise, when I see something like that next time, I’ll give myself more time to digest, before replying.
Samclem: You certainly are right, peace, about the Jews in America being assimilated, if you define assimilated as marrying outside their faith
No, I use “assimilation” in usual sense. It’s not limited to marriage, it’s virtually “unlimited”. Marriage is amenable to statistics. Not everything is, in culture. Even now, with no “official” discrimination, you may visit “shtettles” in Poland or Bohemia whick are populated by Jews, capable of speaking Yiddish, etc. Nothing like this in America, with a few exceptions. Like in Catskills. But, you agree, Catskills is an anomaly. This degree of religious zealotry is unusual in any faith, is unusual even in Israel.
TOM:
peace
I’m not sure how my two statements are “very different,” but I stand by both of them. While I do not deny that many Jews in the U.S. at the end of the 20th century have emulated their Christian neighbors and wandered away from strict observance, inter-marrying with other groups and so forth, my statements were directed toward the question “Why are Jews persecuted?”
Historically, Jews have experienced periods of tolerance and periods of persecution. Throughout both types of conditions, some significant portion of the Jewish people has maintained their Jewish faith and cultural traditions. (Had this not been true, there would be no Jewish faith, today.)
Perhaps the word “assimilation” has created a problem in this discussion. I dunno. However, while it is true that there have not really been a lot of theocracies in history, it is also true that there have rarely been truly secular societies and some form of state religion has been the norm for major cultures and societies throughout history. Whenever a society has decided to mix religious comportment with law, Jews have found themselves persecuted.
(This began even before “Judaism” began if you take the view that Judaism was really established by Ezra and Nehemiah. When the leaders of the Northen Tribes were swept into exile around 719 BCE, the exiles apparently gave up their religion and the remaining peasantry were simply assimilated by the neighboring Canaanites. However, when the Southern Tribes were subjugated and their leaders exiled in 587, something different happened: the exiles kept their faith and when some returned, beginning around 517, the faith of Judaism was established.)
Many Jews never left Babylon, but continued to practice their faith, there. In the ensuing six centuries, the people of Judea were mostly left alone until Antiochus demanded that they give up their faith and worship at his beck and call. This led to the Maccabean rebellion and, eventually, through political machinations to defeat the successors of Atiochus, Roman domination. However, during that same period, through the rise and fall of several eastern empires, the Jews of Babylon held to their faith, as well. Did some number of them allow themselves to be assimilated into that eastern society, particularly after Alexander brought Hellenism to the east in the fourth century? I’m sure many did. However, some core of the faithful never assimilated, despite there being few, if any, persecutions for seven hundred years. In fact, the Jews of Babylon established the schools upon which the Jews of Judea would rely when their own were crushed.
In the third century CE, Zoroastrianism became a “hot” religion in Mesopotamia and Jews were persecuted (giving them the “opportunity” to resist assimilation). However, much of the Talmud was created and expanded by Jews in Mesopotamia who were not under constant threat of persecution. (There were localized disturbances, but there was not the region-wide, centuries-long persecution that was found in western Europe between the 12th and 20th centuries.)
My guess would be that the assimilation that you see, today, is an indication of our current society which is both pluralistic (reducing the number of instances of outright persecution that would strengthen the faith of some core group) and secular (which tends to drain the religious fervor of large numbers of people of all faiths).
The original question, however, was
That question is not answered by showing that the Jews have been persecuted (the “given” of the question).
If the question had been “Why have Christians persecutewd Jews since the 12th century?” we could construct an answer that nearly ignored the Jews, as such, noting the harsh suppression of the Albigensians, the earlier battles within the Christian community to suppress Manicheans, Monophysites, and followers of Pelagius, as well as the battles between Protestants and Catholics (and among Protestants), not to mention the 4th century attacks on pagans in Egypt. From this perpective, we could draw a conclusion that either Christianity has a component of intolerance that swept up the Jews, or that Christianity is the type of religion (as is Islam and Judaism, itself, on different occasions) that has an intolerant component. This answer would need not address the Jews except to point out that they, being not-Christian (or not-specific-Christian-sect), were an obvious target for persecution.
That was not the question, however. Again, the question was “why all the persecution of the Jewish people through the ages?”
To examine that, one has to look at the interaction of the Jews and other groups at many times. Since the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians, Arab Muslims, and the many ethnic groups that make up Christian Europe have all persecuted Jews at some time or another, the question, as asked, needs more than a simple “they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
My response is that they have always maintained a core of believers who held fast to their faith. They have, due to the diaspora, come into contact with many cultures through many ages. Whenever those cultures (Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian, or emperor-worshiping) have demanded that the Jewish people accept the religious trappings (or even the faith) of those majority groups, the Jews have refused to be assimilated into those aspects of the prevailing culture and have been persecuted. In this context, I see no error in my original statement:
Maybe appearance of assimilation ?
Tom put down a thoughtful explanation, which (FWIW) I’d agree with. Perhaps another example might illustrate it ? Chinese families throughout the Pacific are on the receiving end of a similar type of mistrust, albeit without major pogroms (although that may unfortunately be in the cards: see Indonesia and the Philippines). They are easily identified targets of xenophobia, and this is exacerbated by their success in commerce and trade. Often running the “general store”, and its associated moneylending activities in places from PNG to Samoa, they become the object of some envy. Especially true, since a “local” has a harder time pulling such success off: cultural obstacles, such as the extended family system (“wontok”, “ohana”, “pakikisama”, depending on the country) make it tough to operate on a thin margin. So it becomes facile to see some extra-national allegiance in their activities, since straight business might be seen as violating the local culture, esp. in agricultural societies.
Another example, from NYC of the mid-eighties: Korean green grocers were at odds with African Americans in Brooklyn. Briefly, they were able to cut down on overhead (the family worked in the store unpaid) and undercut the prices of competing grocers, who pay their employees, including the sons and nephews. One might see it as family dedication and efficiency; but the “local culture” saw it as not playing by the rules, and it led to some unfortunate violence.
In the case of Jews, scapegoating for the growing pains of European societies switching from agricultural to newer societal models is further exacerbated by the xenophobia of warring, mutually suspicious, ethnically diverse nation-states; further yet by the inclusion of religion in the mix; and all over 2,000 years.
My $.02.
I know quite a few people who would disagree with you (in Yiddish, no less). Yes, they are under 70! In some cases, even children. And yes, they speak it as a first language.
Zev Steinhardt
If the topic of (historical) antisemitism interests you, there is an excellent book out there. The title is The Anguish of the Jews, written by Father Edward H. Flannery, a Roman Catholic priest. He starts out with pre-Christianity antisemitism (Roman and Greek), going into Christian antisemitism and, from there, racial antisemitism (the standard the Nazis used).
Zev Steinhardt
Much of the ‘pop’ historical perspective of WW2 concentrates on the Aryan race / Holocaust issue – it is, of course, vital to remember what did happen because unless we learn the lessons of history we know nothing – but that emphasis addresses, to a considerable extent, the Allies (history is written by the victors) desire to justify and celebrate a cause well fought. However, that emphasis doesn’t, IMHO, address the real reasons why Germany and Japan forged an alliance.
I think it’s helpful to try and put yourself in a 1930’s mindset. The world was, at that time, in the middle of enormous upheaval and a climate of remarkable uncertainty prevailed.
In politics: Communism was a relatively new and rising ideology, the public’s faith in the market driven philosophy of Democracy / Capitalism had been considerably shaken because of the Depression. Both of these social models were developing while the sun was also beginning to ease over yardarm on the British Empire and while, partly as a reaction this upheaval and the worldwide Depression (as well as to post WW1 reparations), Fascism offered a kind of blinkered certainty and national strength (both economic and moral). A busy and difficult time
The World Order: This affects national security, economic alliance’s and the whole nature of colonialism, and dependency - very important for emerging, second tier and both aligned and non-aligned countries. A very high proportion of the world’s nations fell into this category in the 30’s and every geographic region was fraught with apprehension (contrast with the USSR and American spheres of influence during the Cold War including the example’s of being seen to support your friends in Korea, Vietnam, African ‘civil’ wars, the Middle East, etc)
Economically: In times like those when nothing is clear or certain, most countries feel a need to bolster their military strength. Coming at the end of the Great Depression meant this required either serious compromise or, alternatively dedicated commitment and sacrifice from the people for re-armament / rearmament – enter Adolf. who offered a national plan, a way forward that restored certainty, national strength and economic stability to a country otherwise bereft.
In Japan a different kind of direction took hold. Japan had the certainty of the Emperor and a frustrated sense of national destiny. The world order was collapsing and the future was up for grabs. Japan saw itself as the natural Asian leader and went for the big banana: Sweep up the ailing European colonies and clear the Pacific of western / American influence (militarily, politically and economically).
I don’t believe Hitler ever really had a master plan for ‘world domination’ – he was more of an ad hoc military opportunist who increasingly lost perspective (understatement). Historian opinion is now pretty much of the view that his thinking went no further than a fuzzy concept of some form of ‘power sharing’ Europe and elsewhere with the incumbent British Empire (who, incidentally, he viewed as a positive force for world stability – what’s to say!).
To answer your question: I believe the leaders of Germany and Japan, for their own quite different reasons, shared a common interest in reordering the world. It was a marriage of convenience - Rebuild national identity, isolate the rising USA, counter Communism, dominate Europe and its colonies and force the British either aside or to compromise by fighting it on different fronts around the world. Oh, and take charge yourself.
On the question of Jews and persecution. It’s a big issue that has been addressed above by better informed posters. I agree the religious based reluctance to assimilate in other cultures has historically fostered misunderstanding and resentment. The Jews were characterised by the Nazi’s as part of the conspiracy to punish Germany and, therefore, were responsible for the position Germany found itself in. Why ? If you want to appeal to- and actually mobilise - the oppressed masses, you can’t do it by getting them to throw stones across the English Channel, Atlantic or the Maginot Line. Give ‘em a real, close to home, enemy and you can kick start your own agenda
Of course, directing persecution within a society can also be used to distract from another agenda but that wasn’t quite the game Hitler was playing. Again, other posters have addressed this ‘angle’.
Basically, the divisions of WWII were between the powers that were happy with the pre-war status quo and those that weren’t. Germany, Italy, and Japan (along with smaller allies like Hungary, Romania, and Finland) were all countries that wanted something, generally territory that belonged to other countries. The United States, Great Britain, France, and China were all countries that were content with what they already had. During the early part of the war, the Soviet Union wanted some territory it didn’t have (eastern Poland, southern Finland, the Baltic countries) and aligned with the Axis. But after obtaining this territory, the Soviet Union wanted to maintain the new status quo and aligned with the west.
As for anti-semitism, my theory is that the Jews were there. Throughout the last two thousand years of western history, Jews have been a distinct and recognizable minority present among the majority. Every society occasionally feels the need for a scapegoat. When that need surfaces, the Jews become a target. If you were a Roman consul, a medieval king, or a twentieth century politician, you could always deflect criticism of your own economic or military failures by accusing the Jews.
This thread is putting me in a bit of a dilemma: Of the two questions asked by the OP, one is a General Question, and the other is a Great Debate. I just left it here on the hopes that one question or the other would dominate the discussion, thus making it clear what to do with the thread, but that seems not to have happened. Could I ask that everyone take the discussion of the origins of antisemitism to Great Debates, either in one of the existing threads or a new one, and keep this thread about the German-Japanese alliance?